Saturday, October 22, 2011

In the Case of Electric Cars, Even If You Subsidize Them @ $8,000, You Don't Get More of Them

GUARDIAN UK -- "Hopes that £5,000 (about $8,000) government grants would make 2011 "remembered as the year the electric car took off" have been dashed with the release of new figures showing uptake of the greener cars has sputtered out.

Only 106 electric cars were bought in the third quarter of 2011 through the "plugged-in car grant" scheme, launched in January. It marks a significant slump in demand on already sluggish-take-up, with 465 cars registered through the scheme in Q1 and 215 in Q2.

Electric car campaigners and industry had hoped this would be the year the cars – billed as a clean low carbon alternative to conventional petrol and diesel models – made a breakthrough. Former transport secretary Phillip Hammond said in January: "Government action to support affordable vehicles and more local charging points means we are on the threshold of an exciting green revolution – 2011 could be remembered as the year the electric car took off."

The number of electric vehicles in the UK stands at just 1,107, a tiny chunk of the country's 28.5m cars. But the government had hoped to incentive take-up with the launch of grants of up to £5,000, preserving the grant during last summer's cuts and putting aside £43m, or enough for 8,600 cars, until March 2012. The scheme is due to be reviewed in January."

MP: Maybe this is a lesson that the government really shouldn't be picking winner and losers when it comes to the cars consumers buy? 2011 will now be remembered as the "year the electric car fizzled, even with very, very generous government subsidies."

28 Comments:

At 10/23/2011 10:00 AM, Blogger Bruce Hall said...

It's a simple proposition: are you willing to pay more money for less performance... particularly less driving range, especially in winter?

When plug-in technology meets the operational performance of gas/diesel [and some hybrids], then the demand curve will look different.

It's like asking people to buy a solar powered TV that has a restricted viewing time and requires the system to be off for extended periods when the sun isn't shining. Hard sell.

The market moves to new products when performance levels improve and cost is reasonably comparable. Sure, there are always the wealthy who will buy first just to be first, but the rest of us wait for the benefits to outweigh the costs.

 
At 10/23/2011 10:17 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Diesel is more efficient and cheaper. Why would anyone buy an electric vehicle other than to make a statement?

 
At 10/23/2011 12:29 PM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

"Experts" in the buisness field always say that to succeed in a new enterprise you need a sound business plan...that includes a cash flow projection that assumes two years before the business makes a profit.

Wouldn't that be called... a "subsidy"? A new owner has to "subsidise" his business for a couple of years in the hope/expectation of making a profit later...nuttin' wrong with that is there???

The "profit" the politicians are looking/hoping for in this case is more electric cars on the road...

Why would anybody buy a Hummer other than to make a statement???
Nobody seemed to have a problem with that one....why is it so "bad" that greenies make a statement of their own???

Don't sweat the small stuff.

 
At 10/23/2011 1:22 PM, Blogger rjs said...

why would anyone call electricity green?

 
At 10/23/2011 2:12 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

TC: "Wouldn't that be called... a "subsidy"? A new owner has to "subsidise" his business for a couple of years in the hope/expectation of making a profit later...nuttin' wrong with that is there???"

You can play games with the word "subsidy if you wish, but surely even you can see the difference between a business owner risking their own money, and government forcing me to risk mine on a business venture I wouldn't choose to touch with a ten foot pole.

"The "profit" the politicians are looking/hoping for in this case is more electric cars on the road..."

The "profit" the politicians are hoping for in this case is more votes from misguided people who see electric cars as the wave of the future.

"Why would anybody buy a Hummer other than to make a statement???
Nobody seemed to have a problem with that one....why is it so "bad" that greenies make a statement of their own???
"

No one has a problem with greenies making a statement any way they wish, as long as they are making it with their own money, and not money taken from others. Surely you can see the difference.

And, just a word of advice here: When you use a question mark (?), you might actually be taken more seriously if you only used one, which is standard. Using multiples (???), only serves to make you appear overly dramatic, or poorly educated.

 
At 10/23/2011 3:19 PM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

ok, Ron, so call me "dramatic" then.

the government "forces" you to risk your own money on a multitude of ventures you might "not touch with a ten foot pole". I guess you have to do a tally on how many you agree with and how many don't. You know what they say about "you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time.

I'm sure there are lots of people who object to the government forcing them to risk so much of their money on the military. Those must be more of them "misguided people" I guess.;)

You gotta take the good with the bad.

There could be a case made that Hummers were "subsidized" you know...The price of the Hummer at a dealership would have been several thousands of dollars more if not for all the costs absorbed/buried in the military program. So in a sense, "greenie" dollars that went to military spending reduced the cost of Hummers for those buyers. Even steven? Probably not but it's kinda fair...everybody's got something to complain about.;):)

And no, I don't see much of a difference at all. Happy Sunday, TC

 
At 10/23/2011 4:57 PM, Blogger Colin said...

Similar article about the Chevy Volt:

http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/10/17/chevy-volt-demand-reality-sucks

 
At 10/23/2011 5:17 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

TC: "And no, I don't see much of a difference at all. Happy Sunday, TC"

You don't see any difference between spending your own money and spending money stolen from others? Wow. Just wow.

Your entire comment lacks any shred of logic or reason., and contains no facts.

And no, that's not an invitation to explain it to me.

 
At 10/23/2011 6:43 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

ok, Ron, so call me "dramatic" then.

the government "forces" you to risk your own money on a multitude of ventures you might "not touch with a ten foot pole". I guess you have to do a tally on how many you agree with and how many don't. You know what they say about "you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time.


You are missing the point. The government has no business trying to use a political process to pick winners by spending money it extorts from taxpayers. End of story.

I'm sure there are lots of people who object to the government forcing them to risk so much of their money on the military. Those must be more of them "misguided people" I guess.;)

No, they are not misguided. They are right to argue that the US government should not spend as much money on its military as it does. The federal government should reduce military spending by 95% or so.

You gotta take the good with the bad.

Nonsense. The 'good' is not created by government. Government is the problem, not the solution.

 
At 10/23/2011 6:45 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

You don't see any difference between spending your own money and spending money stolen from others? Wow. Just wow.

You expect too much. Most statists cannot imagine a world where individuals are free and the government is limited.

Your entire comment lacks any shred of logic or reason., and contains no facts.

How can you advance a statist view AND use logic or reason?

 
At 10/23/2011 6:57 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

V: "You expect too much. Most statists cannot imagine a world where individuals are free and the government is limited."

V: "How can you advance a statist view AND use logic or reason?"

You're correct, of course, I'm expecting too much. But, it's so bad, I can't be sure he's even advancing a statist view. It's just pure nonsense.

 
At 10/23/2011 6:58 PM, Blogger Craig said...

Wouldn't that be called... a "subsidy"?

No. It would be called "capital".

Don't be ridiculous. Capital is money saved by the business for the purpose of growing the business. A subsidy is money saved by individuals for the purpose of improving their situations, but taken by the government and given to someone else to improve theirs.

The difference shouldn't be that hard to understand.

 
At 10/23/2011 8:15 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

You're correct, of course, I'm expecting too much. But, it's so bad, I can't be sure he's even advancing a statist view. It's just pure nonsense.

You may be right. It is just pure nonsense so we may not be able to determine which view is being advanced.

 
At 10/23/2011 9:56 PM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

Ron H.....

"You don't see any difference between spending your own money and spending money stolen from others? Wow. Just wow."

So let me ask you this Ron: When the government takes the money you sent to it... and paves the road you drive on every day....Was that money "stolen" from you? Just asking...

And, just a word of advice here: When you use the word "WOW", you might actually be taken more seriously if you only used it once, which is standard.;)

 
At 10/23/2011 11:37 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"When the government takes the money you sent to it... and paves the road you drive on every day....Was that money "stolen" from you? Just asking"...

Which roads and which government you don't say...

 
At 10/24/2011 12:01 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

TC: "So let me ask you this Ron: When the government takes the money you sent to it... and paves the road you drive on every day....Was that money "stolen" from you? Just asking..."

Yes, of course it was stolen.

"And, just a word of advice here: When you use the word "WOW", you might actually be taken more seriously if you only used it once, which is standard.;)"

OOH! Did we hit a nerve, you silly clown?

 
At 10/24/2011 9:08 AM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

Ok, I get it....Ron desn't wan't the guv'mint to build roads... when he wants to drive somewhere he'll build his own, when he flies somewhere he'll do his own air traffic control and he's staying home to homeschool his kids.

Juandos on the other hand wants roads built for him but HE's going to decide which ones....LOL

Sounds like you guys have been drinking too much "tea"... and that's good because all issues need two extreme positions. Reality, thank goodness, is somewhere in the middle. Regards, TC

 
At 10/24/2011 11:47 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

MJ Perry: "2011 will now be remembered as the 'year the electric car fizzled, even with very, very generous government subsidies.'"

Greens: "Wait 'til NEXT Year!!"


I cite once more that to expect the libtard brain to learn from experience is like teaching calculus to Coco the Gorilla.

It's just not gonna happen.

If they could not learn from the USSR and China about communism/socialism/Marxism, a simple thing like business failures are hardly going to sway them in their idiocy.

If there was a "Wisdom Quotient" test to match the IQ test, the one thing linking all leftist/green/liberal brains would a sub-multiple-SD Wisdom Quotient. They would almost all uniformly test out as Widiots.

 
At 10/24/2011 11:55 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>> Wouldn't that be called... a "subsidy"? A new owner has to "subsidise" his business for a couple of years in the hope/expectation of making a profit later...nuttin' wrong with that is there???

Yeah, they're doing it with money taken unwillingly from the pockets of citizens, not people voluntarily backing the scheme.

Further, what possible flight of sheer, unmitigated FANTASY makes you think that sales could possibly ramp up enough in another year to make electric cars "hot", when, even with these MASSIVE subsidies, they can't sell at a better ratio than 35:1,000,000?

You buy lottery tickets regularly, don'cha?


>>> Why would anybody buy a Hummer other than to make a statement???
Nobody seemed to have a problem with that one....why is it so "bad" that greenies make a statement of their own???


I think people who buy Hummers without a need for them (at least, for their carrying capacity, etc., if not the luxury) are idiots, too.

Cars should fit the function, first and foremost. You can justify sports cars, light trucks, SUVs, motorcycles, econoboxes... but not electric cars for almost any circumstance.

If you want to "make a statement", then go buy a billboard.

 
At 10/24/2011 12:14 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

>>> I'm sure there are lots of people who object to the government forcing them to risk so much of their money on the military. Those must be more of them "misguided people" I guess.;)

The difference is, that's a PROPER FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT: "To provide for the common defense".


Vangel
>>>No, they are not misguided. They are right to argue that the US government should not spend as much money on its military as it does. The federal government should reduce military spending by 95% or so.

I disagree, but that is certainly within their right. But it's not the same either way -- as mentioned above, Defense of the nation IS a proper function of government. Trying to do the job that belongs to investment specialists is not.

Ron
>>> but surely even you can see the difference between a business owner risking their own money, and government forcing me to risk mine on a business venture I wouldn't choose to touch with a ten foot pole.

BWAAAAAAhahahahahaaaa!!

Soooo naive!!

Want to buy some LAND?
;-D

>>> You don't see any difference between spending your own money and spending money stolen from others? Wow. Just wow.

No, he doesn't. He's a Widiot.

Widiot
>>>> So let me ask you this Ron: When the government takes the money you sent to it... and paves the road you drive on every day....Was that money "stolen" from you? Just asking...

Actually, yes, but it's one that he definitely gets a benefit from, and which the vast majority of people accept as reasonable.

NOW, if you want to argue in favor of privatizing road ownership and/or maintenance and repair of same, that's a legitimate idea and you'd probably find a lot of supporters around here....

Of course, you, being a total hypocrite, can't imagine others not being the same, can you?

>>> And, just a word of advice here:

Head < ----- > Ass
Vastly more separation is called for. You should work on this. It's kind of hard to see The Truth when everywhere you look is nothing but shit.

>>> Ron desn't wan't the guv'mint to build roads... when he wants to drive somewhere he'll build his own, when he flies somewhere he'll do his own air traffic control and he's staying home to homeschool his kids.

Showing the underlying nature of the Statist mind.

Cannot even BEGIN to fathom anything but the two states: Not done by anyone, or done by The State. No other options exist.

Clue: Lots of crap got accomplished before the 20th century without them being funded by government. And even public works projects ARE done with money taken at gunpoint. That is to say, "Stolen" by government.

If they're gonna do that, I want it to be stuff I can either use, or at least see myself as having a benefit from. Not something used to line the pockets of Solyndra executives and *rich* VC capitalists like Kaiser with no benefit to me.

>>> Reality, thank goodness, is somewhere in the middle.

Yeah, like YOU and REALITY have been anywhere on the same PLANET in the last two decades.

LOLZ -- Let us know when your shuttle lands, huh?

 
At 10/24/2011 12:21 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

So let me ask you this Ron: When the government takes the money you sent to it... and paves the road you drive on every day....Was that money "stolen" from you? Just asking...

It is when it uses that money to pay for high cost light rail systems that nobody wants to support by paying the full fare. It is when it uses the gasoline tax to fund bridges to nowhere and to reward politically connected contractors.

And, just a word of advice here: When you use the word "WOW", you might actually be taken more seriously if you only used it once, which is standard.;)

And I have a word of advice for you. When posting try to actually think about what you are writing about and to be logical.

 
At 10/24/2011 12:42 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Ok, I get it....Ron desn't wan't the guv'mint to build roads... when he wants to drive somewhere he'll build his own, when he flies somewhere he'll do his own air traffic control and he's staying home to homeschool his kids.

First, the road in front of my house and the roads that it connects to were all built by private developers. I suspect that is true for most people. Second, even the interstate system was not began by government. It was begun by private trusts that funded repairs and maintenance by charging user fees.

Third, it looks to me that you are quite ignorant of the issues that you try to talk about. Try learning the facts.

 
At 10/24/2011 12:46 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

I disagree, but that is certainly within their right. But it's not the same either way -- as mentioned above, Defense of the nation IS a proper function of government. Trying to do the job that belongs to investment specialists is not.

Defense is. But the defense budget has little to do with actual national defense. There is no reason why US taxpayers should be subsidizing the defense of Korea, Japan, or Germany. There is no reason why the US should have troops stationed in a hundred and fifty countries. There is no reason why the US should spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

 
At 10/24/2011 12:51 PM, Blogger Seth said...

"Ron desn't wan't the guv'mint to build roads"-toc

That's not what he said. He said the money was stolen.

If a mugger steals money from you, but gives you something that you might use, does that mean the mugger didn't steal the money?

 
At 10/24/2011 12:59 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

V: "And I have a word of advice for you. When posting try to actually think about what you are writing about and to be logical."

I have a feeling s/he's already doing the very best s/he can.

 
At 10/24/2011 1:06 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

TC: "Ok, I get it....Ron desn't wan't the guv'mint to build roads... when he wants to drive somewhere he'll build his own, when he flies somewhere he'll do his own air traffic control and he's staying home to homeschool his kids."

Tell me, have you ever met a strawman you didn't like?

You seem to lack even a rudimentary grasp of political philosophy, ethics, or economics. Please educate yourself before you embarrass yourself any further.

 
At 10/24/2011 10:00 PM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

Hold on there, Ron....are you going to talk on points...or just talk?

Man, it's really a reoccuring theme around here....I bring up points...and I get labelled a "libtard, idiot, moron etc" ad nauseatum and if not I get told to do "research", I don't have a "grasp", I should educate myself...it goes on and on...

BUT....nobody answers ON POINT!

the question WAS....When you fly does not a government employee make sure your plane does not collide with another one and would you rather he not be there? When you drive across country, are you happy it takes four days instead of a month? Are you ready to quit your job and teach your own kids at home cause there are no public schools?

Again, just asking....again and again and again.....but there's never any answer...just more name calling and ranting.

My point is that there will always have to be some government involment in all our lives....get used to it for pete' sake...but you guys that rant that you want government out of EVERYTHING.....are just like the crowd on Wall Street....and just about as credible. You're not part of the solution, just like them, you're just noise. Reality, and a bright future, is in the middle. Best Regards, TC (last post)

 
At 10/24/2011 10:11 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

the question WAS....When you fly does not a government employee make sure your plane does not collide with another one and would you rather he not be there? When you drive across country, are you happy it takes four days instead of a month? Are you ready to quit your job and teach your own kids at home cause there are no public schools?

It is a straw-man argument. There is no need for government employees to run air traffic control because they are no better at it than the private sector. There is nothing to suggest that governments are better at building and maintaining roads than private companies. As I pointed out above, most city streets were built by private companies and even the interstate system began as private ventures. What is not in dispute is the terrible job the government does for the money it extracts from people in the form of charges, fees, and fuel taxes. I would rather have competition and have a choice.

And keep in mind that it was government employees who let the hijackers on those planes on 9/11 and government rules that prevented pilots and other airline employees from defending the passengers.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home